Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Unauthorised Use of ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ Marks by Defendants Constitute Infringement and Passing Off, Marks Declared Well-Known” – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has declared the marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, granting significant relief to Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. in their suit against Berachah Sales Corporation & Ors. Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the unauthorized use of these marks by the defendants constituted infringement and passing off, thereby granting a permanent injunction against the defendants.

The Court focused on the infringement of trademarks, observing that the unauthorized usage of Haldiram's registered trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ by the defendants for identical services satisfied the triple identity test, establishing infringement.

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. alleged that the defendants were infringing upon their registered trademarks and passing off their products as those of Haldiram’s. The issue revolved around the unauthorized use of the ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ marks by the defendants on a variety of food products and related materials.

Infringement Analysis: The Court noted the long usage and recognition of the ‘HALDIRAM’ marks, underscoring that allowing the defendants to use similar marks would severely impinge upon Haldiram's rights.

Well-known Trademark Declaration: The Court declared ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, considering their duration, extent of use, advertising, and substantial recognition.

Damages Assessment: Haldiram was awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs for the infringement by the defendants, with an emphasis on compensatory and exemplary damages due to the significant impact on Haldiram’s reputation.

Costs Awarded: The Court also awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to Haldiram, taking into account their legal expenses and efforts in protecting their trademarks.

Decision: Granting a decree of permanent injunction, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘HALDIRAM’, ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, or any deceptively similar marks. The well-known status of the trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ was affirmed, providing broader protection against misuse.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD vs BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS

Latest Legal News